All Episodes
Previous Next
March 30, 2012 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:39
March 30, 2012, Friday, Hour #2
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
And greetings to you, music lovers, thrill seekers, conversationalists all across the fruited plane.
Rush Limbaugh here meeting and surpassing all audience expectations every day.
And it's Friday.
And this is the day that you get to talk about whatever you want to talk about when we go to the phones.
I always try to go to phones earlier, Open Line Friday, but I didn't make it in the first hour today.
I normally try to do that.
But I promise, phone calls are coming up.
Telephone number is 800-282-2882.
And the email address, lrushball at eibnet.com.
I have the Elena Kagan soundbite.
I know that I have total 100% credibility with you when I tell you something you know it's true, but I want you to hear it.
This was Wednesday at the Supreme Court during the third day of oral arguments on the constitutionality of the health care reform law.
This is the most junior justice, Elena Kagan, a former Solicitor General for Obama, who openly cheered the passage of Obamacare when it went through the House.
And she then worked on its defense at the Supreme Court.
She should have ethically recused herself, but she didn't.
And here is her opinion in the form of a question to one of the lawyers, doesn't matter who.
She's talking about the Commerce Clause and coercion.
And she doesn't understand the argument that forcing people to buy health insurance violates the Commerce Clause.
This is a woman who taught law at Harvard.
She was the dean of Harvard Law, which means she's smarter than anybody else.
She's smarter than the dean of law at Columbia, and she's smarter than the dean at Stanford.
And she's smarter than the dean at Columbia.
She's just as smart as the dean over there at Oxford.
There's nobody smarter.
When you're the dean of Harvard Law, you're it.
And she has no clue.
She cannot conceive.
She has no concept of the notion that the federal government cannot force citizens to buy anything.
By the same token, the government can't force you not to buy anything.
It works both ways.
So the lawyers are talking about this using the term coercion, coerce people, this compulsory contract, which is an oxymoron.
And she's frustrated.
She doesn't understand why people don't understand this.
She doesn't understand why people think this is unconstitutional.
She doesn't, it just a mystery to her.
You mean we can't give people health care?
I don't understand.
Here's how she said it.
Why is a big gift from the federal government a matter of coercion?
In other words, the federal government is here saying, we're giving you a boatload of money.
There are no matching funds requirement.
There are no extraneous conditions attached to it.
It's just a boatload of federal money for you to take and spend on poor people's health care.
It doesn't sound coercive to me, I have to tell you.
I am sitting here.
If you're not watching on Ditto Cam, you can't see me with my mouth all the way open in stunned disbelief.
Folks, this is why all week I have been urging, don't think they're smarter than you are.
Don't fall for that.
Don't grant them that.
These are some of the most uninformed, malinformed, ill-informed, arrogant, conceited people you will ever encounter.
Why is a big gift from what she's actually talking about?
It's possible.
You know, I'm not even going to assume she knows what she's talking about.
What it could be is that the federal government is passing the burden of Medicaid to the states.
In Obamacare, they're offloading some of the costs to the states.
They're demanding that states pick up Medicaid costs.
And she is of the belief that the states are going to get the money that the federal government currently spends on Medicaid.
But they aren't.
The states aren't going to be able to afford this.
And unlike the federal government, they can't go print money.
They have to balance their budgets at the state.
It's very difficult for them to even borrow.
They do.
They sell bonds and so forth, but they can't.
It's just not nearly as easy to deficit spend in the states as it is at the federal government.
And Obamacare takes the money on Medicare and shifts it to the states so that they can show on paper that the overall cost of the federal side is not nearly as high as it really is.
And to her, this is a boatload of money.
What could possibly be wrong?
A big gift from the federal government.
Obamacare is just a big gift.
We're given this money and there aren't any strings attached to it.
Boatload of federal money for you to take and spend on poor people's health care.
That doesn't sound coercive.
What it sounds is clueless.
I mean, totally, genuinely clueless.
I mean, this woman's a Supreme Court justice.
Here's Joe Biden as a Davenport, Iowa on Wednesdays at a manufacturing plant, said this.
For years, American manufacturers have faced one of the highest tax rates in the world.
We want to reduce that by over 20%.
We want to drop the rate, particularly for high-tech manufacturers like you, Mr. President, even further than the 20%.
We want to create a global minimum tax because American taxpayers shouldn't be providing a larger subsidy for investing abroad than investing at home.
What?
What?
What is he talking about?
A global, we want to create a global minimum tax because American taxpayers shouldn't be providing a larger subsidy for investing abroad than investing at home.
Here we are in election year.
I don't care.
Some are saying he read the teleprompter wrong.
Some are saying that they missed this issue entirely.
I don't care.
And I'll explain what they think, but he's out there now.
And here's the headline.
Biden, we want to create a global minimum tax.
Reminds me of Walter Mondo.
A Democratic Convention 1984 is running against Reagan.
And back then, by the way, folks, if you've earned $60,000 a year or more, you were rich.
Today, it's $200,000.
When the Democrats want to raise taxes on the rich, it's $200,000 or $250,000.
Back then, it was $60,000.
And Mondale said, I'm going to raise your taxes.
I'm going to promise you right in his acceptance speech at the Democrat Convention.
And it was the Moscone.
He said, I promise you, I'm going to raise your taxes.
Now, so will Ronald Reagan.
The difference is he won't tell you what I just did.
And bye-bye, Democrat Party lost in a 49-state landslide.
And here comes Biden suggesting a global minimum tax.
Now, he might have misspoken.
He was speaking about U.S. manufacturers.
And I think what he was talking about was Obama's plan for a minimum tax on all U.S. multinational companies, which would cost these companies more than $250 billion.
The way he made it sound was, however, a global minimum tax on citizens.
And what Obama has proposed is a minimum tax on all U.S. multinational corporations, which would cost them over $250 billion over the next 10 years, which would, of course, result in their raising prices and it'd cost the consumer even more.
Now, the context of Biden's remarks should, I think that's what he was talking about here.
He just read the telepropter wrong.
Or maybe they wrote it wrong.
Maybe they don't even know what they're talking about here.
Maybe giving them a benefit of the doubt that they don't deserve it.
It doesn't matter.
He said it.
Global minimum tax in an election year.
One more soundbite on this health care business, and then we'll take a break and get to your calls.
Juan Williams, aforementioned Juan Williams, last night on special reports on the All-Star panel, the fill-in host was Shannon Bream.
Brett Baer was not there.
And Shannon Bream is talking to Juan Williams about the Supreme Court oral arguments on the constitutionality of health care reform.
And she said to Juan Williams, okay, the dust is settled.
Now that the arguments are over, Juan, what's your take, bud?
What's going to happen here?
The consequence politically is what's being debated in Washington.
Does this help President Obama's reelection campaign if the Health Care Act is viewed as unconstitutional by the court, or does it hurt Republicans?
It's interesting.
It's viewed in negative terms, not helping anyone really, because for the president, he obviously would be viewed as having lost his signature piece of legislation during his time in office.
And for the Republicans, the question would be, oh, so if Americans don't get a cure for the donut hole, if they don't get some kind of protection against being excluded as a result of preexisting conditions, if you can't keep your children on your insurance till they're 26, what do you Republicans have in mind?
So it's all in the negative.
What are you saying is nobody wins if Obamacare gets thrown out?
Nobody wins.
You see, this again, I know Juan Williams.
I've been interviewed by one.
I like one.
But Juan, do you even care what the bill says?
Here we are once again analyzing the political ramifications for Obama and for the Republic.
What about for the people?
What about for the citizens of this country who are going to lose a significant amount of freedom?
What about the Constitution?
The very foundation of it will be forever altered.
The Constitution limits what government can do.
Pure and simple.
That's what it does.
And this one piece of legislation throws that out and opens the door for government control over every aspect of life.
Does this not matter?
This is not an independent, isolated political exercise.
This is real life here.
And I am struck by how many in the pundit class, the exalted, higher, elevated more than the rest of us, don't even get that.
Or they're uninterested in it.
Or they don't see any use in talking about it.
The political prison is all that matters.
What about real life?
What about the concept of liberty?
What about the concept of the Constitution that limits government?
This is how you lose it.
With people not caring, not knowing, even worse.
People here are incapable of seeing the big picture with this.
And these, we are told, are the exalted ones.
These are the ones smarter than we are.
These are the ones that they're the ones who be on TV analyzing, not you or me.
These are the analysts.
These are cutting buffs.
I mean, these are guys are going to come up with things that you and I can't possibly think of.
We're not smart enough.
We're not in the game.
We're not there.
We don't know the people.
We don't talk to them.
So what we think, how can we know?
And yet, they're looking at a microscopic portion of this, missing what it's really about.
I still am amazed.
Have to take a break, and your phone calls are next on the other side, so don't go away.
More and more people ask me, why did the press get constitutional protection?
Why is there freedom of the press?
What were the founders thinking?
Didn't they know that?
No, I'll tell you what I think they were thinking.
Because the media back in the days of the founding and in the ensuing years, the media back then, it was just as bad.
In fact, in some cases, you could say, it was worse.
Particularly the political press.
I mean, it was despicable.
But the one thing that the founders knew in the examination of history and in their own experiences was that the press was always going to be suspicious of power.
And so were the founders.
And the founders limited government.
The whole point, they'd had enough of King George.
Read Levin's book, Ameritopia, the best historical explanation for how the founders decided and were influenced, were educated, and put the Constitution together based on who and what.
But they really expected that for all of the ignorance and stupidity and all the other failings of the media, that the one thing they would always do would be suspicious of power and hold it accountable.
For the longest time, the press was.
But as you and I both know, the vast majority of members of the media are liberal and therefore sympathetic to liberals in power.
And that's why it's broken down.
There is no, what is the phrase they love to throw around?
Holding truth to power or whatever.
There is no suspicion of Democrat Party power.
There's no suspicion.
Powerful Democrats are not suspects, as they are with the Republicans.
That's why I say if the press treated powerful Democrats like they treated, we'd have an entirely different country.
In terms of national mood, it would be profound.
But it is what it is.
I'm not whining about it.
I'm just explaining.
I get more and more people asking me.
Okay, to the phones we go.
Westchester, New York, this is Steve.
Thank you, sir.
You're first.
It's great to have you here.
Great to be here, Rush.
And thank you from the bottom of my heart for you standing up for the Constitution like you do.
I have two quick comments: one tongue-in-cheek and one very serious.
The tongue-in-cheek one is: I feel that the advertisers that advertise on the Spike TV channel should boycott Spike TV until he apologizes for what he's done.
I guess you get how I mean that in light of what.
Well, wait a minute now.
Spike has apologized.
Oh, isn't he?
When did that come about?
A couple days ago, he apologized for giving out the wrong address.
And he didn't apologize for getting out the address.
He apologized for getting it wrong and promised to get it right next time.
And he also called the two people and he made peace with them.
Oh, okay.
Okay.
So then after he did that, Roseanne Barr got ticked off.
So she tweeted out their address since Spike had apologized.
I'm not kidding.
Roseanne Barr did.
Oh, it never ends, does it?
It never does.
But on the serious side of things, the American citizen, if Obamacare goes down, the American citizen gets their protection that the Constitution affords them.
But on the other side of the coin, the American taxpayer needs protection from the cost of everything that has occurred with this monstrosity of a bill.
This has to be, even before it got to the Supreme Court, this has to have cost the American taxpayer $200 million.
Now, why doesn't that factor into the federal deficit if it gets voted down?
We should be referring to the pressure.
You're not serious.
You don't really.
You're just trying to make a point.
You don't expect to be paid back for the cost of this, do you?
Well, I would love to see the proponents of these bills be called.
No, no, no.
Look, that's not going to happen.
That's totally unrealistic.
There's no end to that.
In fact, it's the other end of the spectrum you need to be looking at.
The day after the first day of oral arguments, it might have been after the second day, the IRS announced that they were hiring 4,000 new agents to be able to meet the requirements of Obamacare.
IRS, 4,000 new agents.
Those 4,000 agents primarily are going to be tracking down people who don't buy health insurance so that they can be fined.
4,000 new agents.
Open line Friday on...
I am Rush Limbaugh, half my brain tied behind my back, just to make it fair.
Roseanne Barr tweeted the address of George Zimmerman's parents after Spike Lee apologized for tweeting the address to the old people he thought were in the house where George Zimmerman lived.
Okay, Open Line Friday, we move on to Cindy in Wald Lake, Michigan.
Great to have you on the program.
Hi.
Hi, Rush.
How are you?
Very well.
Thanks very much.
Good.
I guess I just went grocery shopping, and as I was checking out, saw that Trayvon is on the cover of People Magazine, and I was serious.
What bothered me is that everybody is so focused on this story, and there are so many important things going on.
And if we know it's People magazine, not exactly The Economist.
No, I understand that.
But if all the people that buy People Magazine, if all of these celebrities that are focused on this story would focus their attention on our troops that are in Afghanistan where they're not wanted, and they're now sleeping under the Guardian Angels program, which is where the troops are sleeping and then have other troops who have to stay awake and stand over them while they're sleeping so that they're protected, where the officers have to turn the desk facing the door so they know who's walking in their offices,
where 300 advisors have left the country and will not come back until safety precautions are enacted.
Cindy, let me share your frustration.
I know exactly how you feel, and I know exactly what you're thinking, too.
And by the way, this picture of Trayvon Martin on the cover of People is three years old.
Their media is showing the 13 or 14-year-old picture of it.
Now, but here's the thing.
I experience what you are experiencing.
I finish this program each day.
Now, you know, I'm a big football fan.
I love the National Football League.
I know a lot of people there.
I know players, general managers, owners, and so forth.
I want to make sure I say this right.
It's a thought that hits me every day.
I've never tried verbalizing it, so I'm winging it here.
But I read the sports media.
This is not a criticism of the sports media.
I read the sports media, and I listen to and read quotes from athletes and so forth.
And I ask myself, do these people know what's going on in the country, or do they care about what's going on in the country?
The same thing here.
You've got People Magazine.
There's Trayvon Martin on the cover, and you're wondering, we're losing the country.
Right.
We're losing.
And why isn't everybody on board?
Why isn't everybody on board with this?
Why doesn't everybody understand what's at stake?
I have the same reaction.
Now, I know there's a sports section of the paper, and there's a sports section here, and it's independent and different.
And I'm not suggesting that that change.
I just sometimes wonder if, for example, take a popular actor or a popular athlete or football player.
And if we ever found out what they think about what's going on, what kind of chance would the to influence sports fans would there be in a positive way?
Now, athletes are never going to do this.
That's it.
I'm whistling Dixie here because, especially those who are popular and big enough to endorse, because they don't want to alienate half the audience by expressing a political opinion.
I understand that, but I still, the times to me are so drastic that I look at whatever the group is, be it athletes, sports teams, in your case, the pop culture acting community or whatever entertainment community, and I marvel at what appears to be a total detachment from the rest of life that those people have.
And I wonder if they really are.
I wonder if they really are detached.
All these athletes are getting all this money.
Do they care how much of what they're earning is going to be taken from them in the form of taxes?
I wonder if any of them care about it, matter.
If any of them, the detachment from the rest of society throughout the entertainment world, including sports, is something that Intrigues me.
I think most Americans, unfortunately, or a lot of people, especially in the celebrity world, don't look past their own hand.
They put their hand out, and where it ends is as far as they look.
Well, I know.
You're right, particularly with the pop culture and entertainment.
It's its own world.
And, you know, what's on entertainment tonight is what are the Kardashians doing?
What, gee, I'd like to be the Kardashians, all this.
It's frustrating.
It's always been this way, too.
There's nothing new about it.
But don't they buy gasoline?
Don't these people, I know they make a lot of money, but don't they live in the same world that we do?
Do they not see the changes forthcoming?
Maybe they don't.
In the world of sports, there is no health care problem.
Team pays for everything.
It's not a big, there's no concern for the costs.
I'm not expressing this right.
I'm getting close, but I know exactly how you feel.
I know your point.
Here's People Magazine, Trayvon Martin, on the cover.
And you're saying, what does that matter given what's going on with the U.S. military in Afghanistan and Iraq and our policy?
What does that matter?
It's what you're saying.
And do the people read people?
Do they even know what's going on?
And if they don't, you're really bothered.
I understand totally what you're saying.
It's frustrating as hell, I know.
It is.
It is.
And it's a damn shame.
Yeah, it is.
And this, by the way, is not to say that the Trayvon Martin story is in and of itself irrelevant.
It is.
It's highly indicative of where we are culturally.
And it stands to reason People Magazine would go to town with it.
For them, it's a smart business decision.
But nevertheless, I understand how it affects you.
You're wondering if the people who read that, buy that magazine, are they connected?
Are they engaged?
Do they have the slightest idea how they too are threatened by the problems facing the country?
I know some of you, well, Rush, you say you know him.
Don't you talk to them about it?
Yeah.
And most of them don't want to talk about it.
Particularly, well, I can't even names.
Coaches, players would be scared to death if their bosses or other players found out what they think about things.
There's a it's the old thing about fear.
Everybody governed by it, dominated by it, fear and intimidation.
But my, what I'm trying to verbalize goes beyond that.
I'm actually wondering, let me see if I can put it this way.
If Obama and the Democrats succeed, ultimately where they're going, the impact on everybody is going to be such that sports is no longer going to be an escape.
It's going to be caught up in everything.
It's going to be affected by all of this.
I'm still not, I'm going to have to think about this.
I may have to actually sit down and peck this out at my computer keyboard to flesh it out of my brain.
Because right now it's just a bunch of synapses, neuronic synapses, explosions in there, and they're not coming together in a cogent thought.
So I'll work on it for next week, I promise.
Meantime, Cindy, I know exactly what you mean.
I got to take a break.
We'll be back and continue in mere moments.
Don't go away. It's fun.
Well, it could be fun.
The CEO of Shell Oil was on CBS this morning.
And we're moving up here.
Audio soundbites five and I think six.
Let's go to the next piece of paper.
Five, six, and seven.
The CEO of Shell Oil was on CBS this morning.
His name is Marvin Odom, and he was talking to Charlie Rose.
And look, I like Charlie Rose.
I know Charlie Rose.
I've been on Charlie Rose's show, but Charlie is in the same click with Elena Kagan.
When it comes to Obamacare, it's just a boatload of money that we're giving to the states and they give to poor people to their health care.
What's the problem?
When it comes to gasoline prices, they tell oil companies.
It's gouging people.
Everybody knows that.
That's how gasoline prices, the oil companies, is greedy.
And we need to really come down hard on it.
We need Obama to punish the oil companies, and we need it to happen now.
And we needed it to happen 15 years ago.
Somebody's got to go.
That's the template.
Oil companies, because they exist, are evil.
Oil companies exist for one reason to screw customers.
This is how the media thinks.
This is the cloistered, closed world in which they live.
No concept of market forces, no concept of free markets, no concept.
All the things involved that determine the price of oil, the price of gasoline.
So Charlie Rose says to the CEO of Shell Oil, let's take a snapshot of where the oil situation is today, Marvin, and how it will affect the prices at the pump.
What is the supply-demand situation?
If in fact oil is going up per barrel, price per barrel, what's the direct relationship between that and the price of the pump?
And can anything be done about that in the present environment?
So you've identified the relationship, and it is direct.
The price of oil goes directly into the price of gas.
It's the number one factor that determines the price that people pay every day at the pump.
So back to the price of oil worldwide.
It is a global system, so we have to think about supply and demand on a global basis.
The way that we can address that is to come back and produce as many resources as we can in this country.
And the economic benefits of that are more jobs in this country, better trade balance in this country, more secure supply of oil.
And that's the biggest impact that we can have.
Okay.
So the CEO of Shell Oil has just told Charlie Rose, member in good standing of the cloistered, closed-minded left.
A nice guy.
Don't misunderstand.
He just doesn't know what he thinks he does.
Charlie, supply and demand worldwide.
And the more we drill here, the more supply there are going to be, the more jobs we're going to have, and the lower the price will be if we just drill here, Charlie.
We just develop our own resources, Charlie.
Let's see what happens.
Charlie says, well, obviously, this bill the president wanted to sponsor didn't pass in the Senate.
But wouldn't it be an act of good faith by the oil company to say we don't really need these subsidies now?
Let's get together with the administration and Congress, come up with an energy policy for the benefit of Americans and for energy independence on the part of the U.S.
So the CEO of Shell just said, Charlie, you understand that you've identified the direct relationship.
Supply and demand, oil, more supply, lower price.
Good.
So we need more of our own, Charlie.
Charlie takes that and says, okay, cool.
Now, why don't you guys get together with Obama, give him what he wants, and pay higher taxes then?
So what this guy, what the Shell Oil CEO said to Charlie didn't even permeate the skull.
He got his answer, but it didn't compute.
Because all Charlie's focused on here is giving Obama what he wants, and that is end the subsidies.
And they're not even subsidies.
They are incentives to produce.
And many other companies have them.
Just like you have your mortgage interest deduction to incentivize you to buy a house.
The oil industry and other drugs, do you name it?
They all have various tax breaks.
They're going to call this a subsidy when it isn't because it's a dirty word.
Subsidy means the government is paying big one.
That's not what's happening.
But they want you to think so.
So all Charlie cares about is somehow making news by getting this guy cornered and agreeing that Obama's right and big oil needs to sacrifice.
They have enough.
They have enough profit.
They're making enough.
Shouldn't they willingly give up these subsidies or tax breaks to help Obama and the healthy American people?
And here's what Marvin Odom said.
Well, I'm going to give you a different twist on that story, Charlie, which is if we really want more dollars flowing into the federal government to help with the deficit and so forth, and if we want more income taxes flowing in, the way to do that is to produce more energy in this country.
And so the question that the Congress and that the president ought to be asking themselves is, how do we incentivize more production?
Because you get the royalty payments off of that.
You get all those jobs and all that income tax that comes with it.
Okay, so second standard operating procedure, this is just common sense economics.
Charlie, what we really need to do is increase our production of oil.
It'll create jobs, which creates taxpayers, which creates tax revenue, which creates oil.
So if we go drill for more oil and go produce more, it'll take jobs to do that.
Those people will pay taxes.
That creates even more revenue flowing to Washington.
It'll help reduce the deficit, blah, blah, blah, create jobs, and help us with our independence.
Now, not one word about what Charlie really wants to hear, which is, but Obama needs to get rid of the subsidies because he wants to be reelected and we want him reelected.
And why aren't you agreeing?
Why aren't you agreeing that we need to get the oil companies together with Obama and have them willingly agree to get rid of these subsidies to healthy American people?
None of what the Shell CEO has said has gotten past the skull.
Charlie's skull is a giant protective boundary.
Nothing gets in there.
All that gets in there is what's already in there.
It's preconceived notions, the templates, the narratives.
So Charlie wants big oil to sit down and have dialogue with Obama.
The only dialogue Obama wants is get out of the way and pay your taxes.
Get rid of the subsidies.
So Charlie then says, well, nevertheless, Marvin, a dollar is a dollar.
So tell me, how much subsidies contributed to your bottom line at Shell Oil?
We don't see these as subsidies.
It's important to understand these are the same deductions, manufacturing cost type deductions that are taking across all industries, not just the oil and gas industry.
So Marvin Odom has taken Charlie Rose to school.
The only problem is Charlie wasn't in class.
He would flunt the test.
Charlie didn't hear a word the Shell CEO said.
The Shell CEO just told Charlie what needs to happen to improve the overall economy and how to do it.
Go out and get more oil, hire people to help us do it.
They pay taxes, more revenue to Washington, more jobs, and more oil here means less that we need from the king of Saudi Arabia.
Charlie goes, duh, I'm talking to you about your subsidies that are unfair.
Oh, about the subsidies, Charlie?
They're really not subsidies.
They're just cost deductions, like every other business has.
We're allowed to deduct certain costs of doing business.
Well, don't you think you should get rid of those?
Don't you think you should help Obama?
It is, it is what is it?
Is it amazing?
Is it stupefying?
Is it incredible?
It's blockheadedness.
It's just, but there you have it.
That's exactly what passes for media today.
We'll be back in a second.
Fastest week in media.
It's about over for us.
One more big, exciting hour of Open Line Friday right around the corner.
▲
Export Selection